The following is from Secrets of the Aether:


Distributed frequency is equal to resonance.  Viewing resonance in just one dimension of frequency is like viewing area in just one dimension of length.  The true meaning of resonance is lost when we change its dimensions.  The unit of resonance indicates there are two distinct dimensions of frequency involved. 

\[rson = fre{q^2} \tag{6.39}\]

Modern physics does not measure capacitance and inductance as square roots, yet the resonance equation usually expresses as:

\[F = \frac{1}{{2\pi \sqrt {LC} }} \tag{6.40}\]

where \(F\) is the “resonant frequency,” \(L\) is the inductance and \(C\) is the capacitance. (“Resonant frequency” is redundant and incorrect.  It is like saying “surface length.”)  Equation (6.40) loses much of its meaning by making it appear the inductance and capacitance measurements are square roots and expressing the resonance in terms of frequency.  It is as though modern physics has not yet discovered the unit of resonance.

To make the math of resonance compatible with the rest of physics, the correct expression would keep the natural measurements of inductance and capacitance and notate the result as frequency squared.  In the Aether Physics Model, equation (6.41) arises as a different equation (6.40) from the Standard Model resonance equation.

\[rson = \frac{1}{{4\pi  \cdot indc \cdot capc}} \tag{6.41}\]

Equation (6.41) differs from the Standard Model resonance equation by a factor of \(\sqrt \pi  \) and yet it produces true resonance in physical experiments.  This is not to say the Standard Model resonance equation is wrong.  It is merely incomplete.  There are actually three resonance equations, which are related through the Pythagorean Theorem.

We express the three resonance equations in terms of a common denominator of \({4{\pi ^2}}\) and in quantum measurements units:

\[rson1 = \frac{1}{{4{\pi ^2} \cdot indc \cdot capc}} \tag{6.42}\]

\[rson2 = \frac{{\pi  - 1}}{{4{\pi ^2} \cdot indc \cdot capc}} \tag{6.43}\]

\[rson3 = \frac{\pi }{{4{\pi ^2} \cdot indc \cdot capc}} \tag{6.44}\]

Equations (6.42) to (6.44) are related such that:

\[rson1 + rson2 = rson3 \tag{6.45}\]

The rson1 equation is identical to the Standard Model equation for resonance (6.40), and is associated with the highest potential.  The rson3 equation is the true resonance of an inductive-capacitive circuit and is identical to equation (6.41).  Both rson2 and rson3 equations resonate with potential near zero. 

The resonance unit indicates that resonance must measure as a distributed quantity in order for us to arrive at the correct value.  The design of present measurement equipment measures resonance in only one dimension of frequency. 

Because familiarity with the time domain exists at the macro level of existence, modern physics also measures the quantum realm in the time domain.  The reciprocal of time is frequency, not resonance.  It is a significant error that modern physics does not recognize resonance as a distributed unit. 

The quantum realm exists in a five-dimensional space-resonance as opposed to a four-dimensional space-time.  If physicists wish to understand quantum existence properly, then we must design measurement equipment to measure directly in the resonance domain.  Presently, Fourier analysis attempts to account for this shortcoming by mathematically converting time domain measurements into frequency domain data. 


I followed up with the following comment:


Angular frequency is a cycle of repetition and refers to the angles covered by a frequency.   Thus angular frequency is equal to:


A bicycle wheel turning at the rate of five cycles per second will scan an angle of 10π radians per second.  Angular frequency is in units of radians per second.  

When a cycle completes, it does so in a given period of time.  The period of time to complete a cycle is the reciprocal of the frequency:


A bicycle wheel turning at five cycles per second will have a period of 1/5 second.  Or in other words, the time it takes to turn the wheel once at five cycles per second will be 1/5 second.

Not all cycles are stationary and go in circles.  Quite often a cycle is associated with a velocity.  As a bicycle wheel turns and completes one cycle, the rider of the bike will travel a distance.  This distance is called the "wavelength" when applied to photons.  The distance the bicycle rider will travel will depend on its velocity per frequency:


So if the rider travels five feet per second, and the wheel turns at five cycles per second, then the rider has traveled one foot (the bicycle would be very small!).  







David Thomson's Coil Formula

As is explained in the Aether Physics Model, Coulomb's constant is equal to:

\[{k_C} = \frac{{c \cdot Cd \cdot {\mu _0}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}} \tag{1.1}\]

From this, inductance can be defined as:


In equation (1.2) 1 meter equals 1 henry.  .003 meter equals 3 mH, and so on.  The relationship of length to inductance is clearly shown in reference to Coulomb's constant.  Wheeler's formula (for the inductance of an air core solenoid coil) outputs inductance in terms of thousand inches. 


where N is the number of turns, R is the radius in inches, and H is the length of windings in inches.

Equation (1.3) outputs in length, just what the Coulomb's constant formula requires.  So if the units of Wheeler's formula are converted to meter and the two formulas are combined then:


and this can be simplified to:


The values and units generated in equation (1.5) are accurate to the same degree as Wheeler's formula for inductance since it incorporates Wheeler's formula unchanged.  The exact value of Cd is equal to:


where the values are Coulomb's constant, light speed, permeability, and permittivity.

A practical simplification of the formula (1.5) is:


where the value N is a number, and R and H are in inches, and the result is in henry.

If you use MathCAD or another program, which automatically converts inches to meters, then use equation (1.8):


If you're looking for an inductance formula where the input is in meters instead of inches, you can use this formula:


Formula (1.9) can be used for either solenoid or flat spiral coils.  For flat spiral coils use the average radius for R and the width of the coil windings for H.  Both R and H are in meters.  N is the number of turns.